USPTO Patents Application 09755408

513 634 6108 02:00:27 p.m. 09-20-2004 10/12

Appl, No. 09/753,408

Ally. Docket No. 7903M

Amdt. Dated October 6, 20Q3

Reply to Fina] Office Action of August 5, 2003

Customer No. 27752

REMARKS

Claim 2 has been canceled withom prejudice. Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 21. and 28 have been
amended. Claim 1 has been amended to require that the at least one upstanding stmt be aiticulably
connected to the upstandable sidewall of the container. Support for the current Amendment to Qaim
1 is found in Claim 2, as originaUy presented. Claim 10 has been amended to require that the first and
secopd struts be ardculdbly associated with the fust and second upstandable sidewalls. Support for
the current Amendment to Claim 10 can be found in the Specification on page 4, lines 16-20, as
originally presented. Claim 21 has been amended to require that the at least one upstanding
reinforcing panel be connected to at least one of the sidewalls. Claim 28 has been amended to require
that the first and second rcinfoiceable panels be articulably associated with the first and second
sidewalls. Suppon for the Amendments to Claims 21 and 28 is found in Claim 2, as originally
presented. Claims 3-4 have been amended to change their d^ndency due to Applicant's
cancellation of Claim 2 without prejudice. Claim 21 has also been amended to provide proper
antecedent basis for the xeinforeeable panel. No new matter has been added. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-14, 16-
17, and 24-34 remain in this Application and are presented for the Examiner's reconsideration in light
of the above Amendments and the following commenu*

Telephonic hiterview

Applicant thanks the Examiner for the after final interview on October 2, 2003. Even though
an agreement was not reached. Applicant is providing the instant Amendments and the following
comments within two months of the statutory three-month period for reply as discussed. Applicant
respectfully requests the Exanuner to reconsider Applicant's position and provide favorable
reconsideration. Applicant wiU be providing a summary of the telephonic interview under separate

cover.

The Examiner has indicated that the substitute specification filed Mareh 23. 2003 and
resubmitted on /une 30, 2003 was objected under 35 U,S.C. §132 for the intrwhiction of new matter
AppUcam again traverses this rejection. However, for the sake of expediency, an additional
Application will be submitted prior to issuance of the instant Application. Therefore, Applicant
withdraws submission of the substitute specification and proposed substitute sheets of drawings in the
instant ^pUcfttiQii.

Page 6 of 8

PAGE 10/12 * RCVD AT 9/20/20O4 2:54:00 PM [Eastern Daylight Time] * 8VR:U8PTO-eFXRP-1/1 * DNIS: 8729302 * CSID:S13 634 6108 * DURATION (mm-ss): 05-22

513 634 6106 02:00:56 p.m. 09-20-2004

Appl.No. 09/755,408

Atty, Docket No. 7903M

Aindt. Dated October 6. 2003

Reply to Final Office Action of August S, 2003

Custorner No. 27752

Rejection Vyidgr?? U.S. C, ftlOZft))
Turning now to the Examiner's rejections of the Claims, Claims 1-4, 10-13, 16-17, 21-24, 28-
31, and 33-34 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C, §102(b) over Nichols, U,S. Patent No. 5,002,194
and Aitusi, U.S. Patent No, 4,801,017. Claims 1, 10-13, 21, and 28-31 were finally rejected under 35
i U.S.C. § 102(b) over Harrison, British Reference No. 2194514A. Again, Applicant xespeccfully
traverses these rejections. Previous arguments made regarding the Nichols, Artusi, and Harrison
references will not be repeated for the sake of brevity. Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner
to consider the following additional arguments with respect to the references:

1. By Amendment, Applicant has amended Claims 1, 10, 21, and 28 to require articulable
connection between the upstanding strut (reinforcing panel) to the sidewall of the container.

2. Applicant respectfully suggests that the Artusi, Nichols, and Harrision references are
silent with respect to providing an articulable strut or reinforcing panel that is articulably connected to
an upstandable sidewall of a container.

3. The Harrison reference discloses a cardboard case erected prior to insertion of an inner
container and following insertion of the inner container, provision is made for coimecting the inner
container wall or walls to the outer case wall or walls. See Abstract. In particular. Harrison states

th»l such connection may be by adtesive or $e^iig» or by means of prctjections on tbe waU or waUs of

the inner container engaging in apertures in the wall or walls of the outer case. Thus, it can be seen
that Harrison does not lequire my removable or articulable connection of a auppoiting itnicture to the

container.

4. The Nichols reference is silent with respect to requiring an articulable connection of a
strut or reinforcing panel with an upstandable sidewall.

5. Further, Applicant respectfully suggests that Artusi is silent with respect to providing
Applicant's clainned articulable reinforcement. Particularly, since the Examiner indicates that the
structure defmed by call-out No. 1 in Fig. 2 could be considered a container. Applicant is at a loss to
understand how the embodiment shown as call-^ut No. 2 can exhibit articulable connection thereto.

Because of these considetations, the ArtusU Nicholas, and Harrison references do not teach
each and every element of Applicant's claimed invention as presented in Claims 1, 10, 21, and 28.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection with respect
to independent Claims 1, 10, 21, and 28. Further, Artusi, Nicholas, and Harrison references, alone
Of in eombinaiion, 6o not fiuggeit Applifiant'i elaimed eontainef. Thui» the ArhuL Niehokis, and
Harmon refersnces fail to disclow, taacht suggest* or render obvious, either singly or in combination,
every recited featute of Attt>li£aflt'ii inttepi^ndem ekims.

Because dependent Claims 3-5, 8-9, 11-14, 16-17, 22-27, and 29-34 aU depend directly or
indirectly from Applicant's independent Qairos 1, 10, 21, or 28, they cofntain all of their respective
limitations. For this reason, Applicant submits that the arguments made above concerning the

olloWdbilUy of Claitns 1, 10, 21, and 28 are equally applicable to the rejection of Claims 3-5, 8-9, 1 1-
Page7of8

PAGE 11/12 * RCVD AT 9/2O/20O4 2:54:00 PM [Eastern Daytight Time] « 8VR:U8PTO-EFXRF-1/1 " DNI8: 8729302 * CGrD:S13 634 6108* DURATION (mm-ss):05-22

513 634 6108

02:01:32 p.m.

09-20-2004

12/12

Appl. No. 09/755,408

Atiy. Docket No. 7903M

Amdt. Dated October 6, 2003

Reply to Final Office Action of August 5, 2003

Customer No. 27752

14, 16-17, 22-27. and 29-34 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). Applicant therefore requests reconsideration
and withdrawal of the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection to Claims 3-5, 8-9, 1 1-14, 16-17, 22-
27. and 29-34.

Based on all the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that each of Applicant's remaining
claims is in condition for allowance and favorable reconsideration is requested.

This response is timely filed pursuant to the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.8 and MJ'.E.P. fi512
on October 6, 2003 (October 5 being a Sunday). If any additional charges are due, the Examiner is
authorized to deduct such charges from Deposit Account No. 16*2480 in the name of The Procter &
Gamble Company.

Conclusion

Attorney for Applicant

October 6, iQ03
Customer No. 27752

RcgistrAtion No. 47,792

(513) 654-9359

Page 8 of 8

PAGE 12/12 " RCVD AT 9/20^004 2:54:00 PM [Eastern Daylight Time] " 8VR:U8PTO-EPXRP-1/1 " DNI8:8729302 * CSID:913 834 6108 * DURATION (mm-ss): 05-22

This Page is Inserted by IFW Indexing and Scanning
Operations and is not part of the Official Record

BEST AVAILABLE IMAGES

Defective images within this document are accurate representations of the original
documents submitted by the appHcant.

Defects in the images include but are not limited to the items checked:

□ BLACK BORDERS

□ IMAGE CUT OFF AT TOP, BOTTOM OR SffiES

□ FADED TEXT OR DRAWING

□ BLURRED OR ILLEGIBLE TEXT OR DRAWING

□ SKEWED/SLANTED IMAGES

□ COLOR OR BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS
a GRVY SCALE DOCUMENTS

□ LINES OR MARKS ON ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

□ REFERENCE(S) OR EXHIBIT(S) SUBMITTED ARE POOR QUALITY

□ OTHER:

IMAGES ARE BEST AVAILABLE COPY.
As rescanning these documents will not correct the image
problems checked, please do not report these problems to
the IFW Image Problem Mailbox.